6 ms·

Good on Apple for allowing tracking cookies to be blocked, i'd next like to see them implement blocking of tracking scripts. They are a nuisance to privacy as

by bsears 9y ago

Good on Apple for allowing tracking cookies to be blocked, i'd next like to see them implement blocking of tracking scripts. They are a nuisance to privacy as well as contributing to web bloat. I've seen sites with 20+ trackers each with their own javascript and all it takes is for one to be compromised for an XSS vector to be opened.

negus 9y ago
That's true, but this web bloat pays the bills. It is what brings you and billions of other people great services like maps, email, translate etc for free. Web without ads would not be the same as it is now and I'm not sure whether it would seem better to you
- jedrek 9y ago
  It only pays for the bills because publishers have said, "sure, put whatever tracking script you want on there, we don't care". And yet they have the power, because they have the eyeballs. Look, nobody runs 30 second commercials in a loop for an hour at prime time, because the TV stations know it would chase viewers away forever. Publishers have to draw a line in the sand and hold it. Not likely, though. It took browser makers to kill pop up ads.
  - mentos 9y ago
    Ha wow I completely forgot about the days of pop-up ads that was such an intrusive nightmare.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Honestly just charge for the services or take them offline I say. I want to pay for Facebook with money. I can’t. I’d really like to see a complete attack - technical and legal - that goes even further than Apple’s on the current ad business model even if it means 90% of ad revenue disappears over night, and a similar fraction of “free” services do too.
  - victorhooi 9y ago
    People say this - but they rarely put their money where their mouth is. History has shown time and time again that people are cheapskate. I know I'm guilty of this as well. We like to signal that oh yes, we have money, and we'll pay. But then they seize up when they see the bill. I subscribe to things like 1Password, Netflix, Hulu, Pocketsmith etc. If I sat down and added it all up, I assume it'd be several hundred a year. Even working in tech, I still sometimes think twice about paying for all these things. How much would you pay for Facebook? $20 a month? $30 a month? $100? I suspect you and I both have very little insight into how much it actually costs to run Facebook - but working for another internet giant, I can say it probably costs a lot more than the average layperson assumes.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      People say this - but they rarely put their money where their mouth is. Actually they do, but a majority of content is downright fecal. Netflix seems to manage to run subscription services, the NYT digital is doing very well, as are plenty of others. Some “services” though? You’re right, if asked to pay for them, most people would laugh and walk away. The Buzzfeeds of the world only exist because of advertising. So to your point, I pay a few hundred a year for email, streaming services, news, journals, and so on. I wouldn’t use FB if they paid me though. Most social media is worse than free, and a move away from predatory practices and ads would kill them. Good fucking riddance.
    - awalton 9y ago
      > How much would you pay for Facebook? $20 a month? $30 a month? $100? Not even Facebook thinks Facebook is worth that much a month from all of its users. ~2 billion times $20/month times 12m/y = $480B/year? You really think that's fair? The problem is most web content is worth about $0.0002 a page or so. You can't pay that amount of money to anyone - microtransactions simply don't work in our economic system. Because most web content is so exceptionally worthless, the next best thing to do is make it all free and charge ad companies instead, and that's how we are where we are. That's why newspapers and magazines have died - the content they sell is worth less than the paper (and especially the ink) they print on now, so they have to fill their pages with more and more ads, furthering the content death spiral. The market has proven time and again people will pay for quality over quantity - that's why Netflix hasn't died. The web is currently approaching Peak Content Quantity, and the ad companies (re Google) have never been richer because of it. And now that the technology exists to resist those ads, they're becoming crankier as they've gotten used to the status quo. Hopefully sooner before later someone figures out an online content model that's paid and works. And I hope it's sooner, because the ad companies are becoming malicious now that they're packing in cryptominers and other malware to handler "ad blockers"...
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  I think it would be better. People are willing to pay for good services, and hobbyists are willing to build systems and give them away for free. The Internet was around for a long time before advertising. It was also better in many ways. People built things because they wanted them to work well, not because they were tied to a profit center. The more advertising has gotten into the web, the lower the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten.
- irrational 9y ago
  Well, I remember the web before it was bloated with advertising. I think it was better. Geocities is life.
amelius 9y ago
The nice thing about Apple products is that they are all the same. This means that fingerprinting probably doesn't really work as well as on other platforms.
amelius 9y ago
We need to develop AI that can detect and eliminate ads. If Apple integrates this into their OS/hardware, then that would eliminate the incentive of tracking in the first place.

by bsears 9y ago

negus 9y ago

That's true, but this web bloat pays the bills. It is what brings you and billions of other people great services like maps, email, translate etc for free. Web without ads would not be the same as it is now and I'm not sure whether it would seem better to you

jedrek 9y ago
It only pays for the bills because publishers have said, "sure, put whatever tracking script you want on there, we don't care". And yet they have the power, because they have the eyeballs. Look, nobody runs 30 second commercials in a loop for an hour at prime time, because the TV stations know it would chase viewers away forever. Publishers have to draw a line in the sand and hold it. Not likely, though. It took browser makers to kill pop up ads.
- mentos 9y ago
  Ha wow I completely forgot about the days of pop-up ads that was such an intrusive nightmare.
alkonaut 9y ago
Honestly just charge for the services or take them offline I say. I want to pay for Facebook with money. I can’t. I’d really like to see a complete attack - technical and legal - that goes even further than Apple’s on the current ad business model even if it means 90% of ad revenue disappears over night, and a similar fraction of “free” services do too.
- victorhooi 9y ago
  People say this - but they rarely put their money where their mouth is. History has shown time and time again that people are cheapskate. I know I'm guilty of this as well. We like to signal that oh yes, we have money, and we'll pay. But then they seize up when they see the bill. I subscribe to things like 1Password, Netflix, Hulu, Pocketsmith etc. If I sat down and added it all up, I assume it'd be several hundred a year. Even working in tech, I still sometimes think twice about paying for all these things. How much would you pay for Facebook? $20 a month? $30 a month? $100? I suspect you and I both have very little insight into how much it actually costs to run Facebook - but working for another internet giant, I can say it probably costs a lot more than the average layperson assumes.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    People say this - but they rarely put their money where their mouth is. Actually they do, but a majority of content is downright fecal. Netflix seems to manage to run subscription services, the NYT digital is doing very well, as are plenty of others. Some “services” though? You’re right, if asked to pay for them, most people would laugh and walk away. The Buzzfeeds of the world only exist because of advertising. So to your point, I pay a few hundred a year for email, streaming services, news, journals, and so on. I wouldn’t use FB if they paid me though. Most social media is worse than free, and a move away from predatory practices and ads would kill them. Good fucking riddance.
  - awalton 9y ago
    > How much would you pay for Facebook? $20 a month? $30 a month? $100? Not even Facebook thinks Facebook is worth that much a month from all of its users. ~2 billion times $20/month times 12m/y = $480B/year? You really think that's fair? The problem is most web content is worth about $0.0002 a page or so. You can't pay that amount of money to anyone - microtransactions simply don't work in our economic system. Because most web content is so exceptionally worthless, the next best thing to do is make it all free and charge ad companies instead, and that's how we are where we are. That's why newspapers and magazines have died - the content they sell is worth less than the paper (and especially the ink) they print on now, so they have to fill their pages with more and more ads, furthering the content death spiral. The market has proven time and again people will pay for quality over quantity - that's why Netflix hasn't died. The web is currently approaching Peak Content Quantity, and the ad companies (re Google) have never been richer because of it. And now that the technology exists to resist those ads, they're becoming crankier as they've gotten used to the status quo. Hopefully sooner before later someone figures out an online content model that's paid and works. And I hope it's sooner, because the ad companies are becoming malicious now that they're packing in cryptominers and other malware to handler "ad blockers"...
CaptSpify 9y ago
I think it would be better. People are willing to pay for good services, and hobbyists are willing to build systems and give them away for free. The Internet was around for a long time before advertising. It was also better in many ways. People built things because they wanted them to work well, not because they were tied to a profit center. The more advertising has gotten into the web, the lower the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten.
irrational 9y ago
Well, I remember the web before it was bloated with advertising. I think it was better. Geocities is life.

amelius 9y ago

The nice thing about Apple products is that they are all the same. This means that fingerprinting probably doesn't really work as well as on other platforms.

amelius 9y ago

We need to develop AI that can detect and eliminate ads. If Apple integrates this into their OS/hardware, then that would eliminate the incentive of tracking in the first place.